Jun 14, 2010 7:38am
Re: Scared very undead
This one is right in my wheelhouse. I am only going to address this from a military strategy standpoint and not take "sides".
The Saudis despise Iran marginally less than Israel and are very nervous about a nuclear armed Iran. As well they should be. William Tell (and other forum history buffs) may be able to provide a more accurate historical perspective, but Iran is Persian, the Saudis are Arab. You have to go a long way back before the paths cross. Probably within a few generations of Abraham. And they haven't liked each other since then.
(Please someone, correct me if I have oversimplified)
This is likely another move in the giant diplomatic chess game that is the Middle East. The Saudis send a message to Iran that they will allow Israeli overflight - action without direct action. Air corridors through Iraq is a no-go from our standpoint. That would be viewed as direct support to the Israelis. So our chess move is inaction without action. I do wonder whos move came first - ours or the Saudis.
As to your assertion that it would take 3 nukes to cap Israel, that just isn't true. Despite what you see in movies the immediate warfighting effects of an air burst or near surface burst are quite limited in range. Certainly not enough to hold Israel's sovereignty at risk. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with a nuclear arsenal AND the ability to deliver weapons on target with precision. Iran is at best several years away from developing a weapon - and then they would need to develop a viable delivery system.
Next comes a look at what a country's nuclear strategy might be. You have to assess what your potential adversary holds vital to their national security and devise a nuclear strategy to hold that at risk. Iran has a concentrated power structure - one or two weapons on target and you eliminate, or at the very least greatly reduce, the ability of the ruling clerics and government to govern. When you are the only nuclear player in the game, developing a strategy is pretty easy - target the other guy's leadership and Command and Control. It's only when you have multiple nuclear players that you get into the deterrence and stability models that lead to the Mutually Assured Destruction concept that shaped US and USSR/Russian strategies since the late 50s.
Now it appears as if the story is being retracted if not denied outright. Where there's smoke there's fire.
Another Knight takes Queen's Bishop?